Perbandingan Metode MADM dalam Memilih Pegawai Terbaik dengan Pembobotan Objektif

 (*)Andre Hasudungan Lubis Mail (Universitas Medan Area, Medan, Indonesia)
 Juanda Hakim Lubis (Universitas Medan Area, Medan, Indonesia)
 Dinda Rizky Aprillya (Universitas Medan Area, Medan, Indonesia)

(*) Corresponding Author

Submitted: May 31, 2023; Published: July 31, 2023


Nowadays, MADM or Multi-Attribute Decision Making as the part of decision-making theory has been used in various studies to examine decision making problems. Several methods such as SAW, ARAS, and MABAC are the most popular method to be selected to solve these decision-making problems, especially for personnel selection in a company or institute. However, these methods will certainly present various results. Hence, it is necessary to perform a comparison of the most optimal ranking results between these methods. The study focused on comparing those three methods in handling the personnel selection problem through the objective weighting by using SWARA method. The RSI method also employed to ensure the proper method to be used to solve the MADM problem. Five attributes are selected as the references to select best personnel among 38 of them, including Attendance, Discipline, Performance, Punishment, and Achievement. The study reveals that all of the three methods have the identical of RSI score. The results showed that the three methods had almost the same RSI values. The SAW method has the highest RSI value compared to other methods, namely 0.999489; the MABAC method has an RSI value of 0.999416, and the ARAS method with the lowest RSI value, namely 0.999052. Theoretical and practical implications are presented and discussed, along with suggestions for future research.


SAW; ARAS; MABAC, SWARA; Employee Selection

Full Text:


Article Metrics

Abstract view : 407 times
PDF - 169 times


N. Liu and Z. Xu, “An overview of ARAS method: Theory development, application extension, and future challenge,” Int. J. Intell. Syst., vol. 36, no. 7, pp. 3524–3565, 2021.

A. Alinezhad and J. Khalili, New methods and applications in multiple attribute decision making (MADM), vol. 277. Springer, 2019.

M. Jovanović et al., “A Multicriteria Decision Aid-Based Model for Measuring the Efficiency of Business-Friendly Cities,” Symmetry (Basel)., vol. 12, no. 6, p. 1025, 2020.

Y.-C. Chuang, S.-K. Hu, J. J. H. Liou, and G.-H. Tzeng, “A data-driven MADM model for personnel selection and improvement,” Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ., vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 751–784, 2020.

S. M. Tabatabaeifar, M. Haghighi, and M. A. Jafari, “Identifying and prioritizing effective strategies in strategic human resource planning using multi-fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making methods (Case study; Export Development Bank of Iran),” Int. J. Nonlinear Anal. Appl., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 3517–3533, 2022.

M. Popović, “An MCDM approach for personnel selection using the CoCoSo method,” J. Process Manag. new Technol., vol. 9, no. 3–4, pp. 78–88, 2021.

N. Dewi, R. H. Laluma, E. Garnia, D. Saepudin, N. Hendajany, and others, “Employee Performance Assessment System Design Based on 360 Degrees Feedback and Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique Method Integration,” in 2020 14th International Conference on Telecommunication Systems, Services, and Applications (TSSA, 2020, pp. 1–4.

R. K. Dhurkari, “MCDM methods: Practical difficulties and future directions for improvement,” RAIRO-Operations Res., vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 2221–2233, 2022.

A. Alinezhad and J. Khalili, “MABAC Method,” in New Methods and Applications in Multiple Attribute Decision Making (MADM), Springer, 2019, pp. 193–198.

S. Luo and L. Xing, “A hybrid decision making framework for personnel selection using BWM, MABAC and PROMETHEE,” Int. J. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 21, no. 8, pp. 2421–2434, 2019.

C. S. S. Anupama, P. Srinivas, and K. Vijayalakshmi, “Performance Comparison of Decision Making Methods in Network Selection,” in 2019 5th International Conference on Advanced Computing & Communication Systems (ICACCS), 2019, pp. 50–52.

B. Zlaugotne, L. Zihare, L. Balode, A. Kalnbalkite, A. Khabdullin, and D. Blumberga, “Multi-criteria decision analysis methods comparison,” Environ. Clim. Technol., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 454–471, 2020.

D. M. Midyanti, R. Hidayati, and S. Bahri, “Perbandingan Metode Edas Dan Aras Pada Pemilihan Rumah Di Kota Pontianak,” CESS (Journal Comput. Eng. Syst. Sci., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 119–124, 2019.

J. Hutagalung and M. T. Indah, “Pemilihan Dosen Penguji Skripsi Menggunakan Metode Aras, Copras dan Waspas,” J. Sisfokom (Sistem Inf. Dan Komputer), vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 354–367, 2021.

N. Nurhaliza, R. Adha, and M. Mustakim, “Perbandingan Metode AHP, TOPSIS, dan MOORA untuk Rekomendasi Penerima Beasiswa Kurang Mampu,” J. Ilm. Rekayasa dan Manaj. Sist. Inf., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 23–30, 2022.

A. Qiyamullaily, S. Nandasari, and Y. Amrozi, “Perbandingan penggunaan metode SAW dan AHP untuk sistem pendukung keputusan penerimaan karyawan baru,” Tek. Eng. Sains J., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 7–12, 2020.

R. S. Dwitama, “Pemilihan Metode Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Menggunakan Pendekatan Rank Similarity Simulation (RSS),” in Prosiding Seminar Nasional Darmajaya, 2019, vol. 1, pp. 27–37.

M. Singh and M. Pant, “A review of selected weighing methods in MCDM with a case study,” Int. J. Syst. Assur. Eng. Manag., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 126–144, 2021.

S. S. Goswami and D. K. Behera, “The Effects of Using Different Subjective Weighting Methods on Solving Multi-criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Problems,” Int. J. Prod. Eng., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 40–51, 2020.

M. Sahin, “A comprehensive analysis of weighting and multicriteria methods in the context of sustainable energy,” Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol., vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 1591–1616, 2021.

G. O. Odu, “Weighting methods for multi-criteria decision making technique,” J. Appl. Sci. Environ. Manag., vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 1449–1457, 2019.

M. Torkashvand, A. Neshat, S. Javadi, and H. Yousefi, “DRASTIC framework improvement using stepwise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA) and combination of genetic algorithm and entropy,” Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., vol. 28, pp. 46704–46724, 2021.

I. Mukhametzyanov, “Specific character of objective methods for determining weights of criteria in MCDM problems: Entropy, CRITIC and SD,” Decis. Mak. Appl. Manag. Eng., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 76–105, 2021.

S. Devi and H. T. Sihotang, “Decision Support Systems Assessment of the best village in Perbaungan sub-district with the Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) Method: Decision Support Systems Assessment of the best village in Perbaungan sub-district with the Simple Additive Weighting (SAW),” J. Mantik, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 112–118, 2019.

S. Jovcic, V. Simic, P. Prusa, and M. Dobrodolac, “Picture Fuzzy ARAS Method for Freight Distribution Concept Selection.,” Symmetry (Basel)., vol. 12, no. 7, p. 1062, 2020.

G. Wei, Y. He, F. Lei, J. Wu, and C. Wei, “MABAC method for multiple attribute group decision making with probabilistic uncertain linguistic information,” J. Intell. & Fuzzy Syst., vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 3315–3327, 2020.

A. S. Bhaskar and A. Khan, “Comparative analysis of hybrid MCDM methods in material selection for dental applications,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 209, p. 118268, 2022.

Bila bermanfaat silahkan share artikel ini

Berikan Komentar Anda terhadap artikel Perbandingan Metode MADM dalam Memilih Pegawai Terbaik dengan Pembobotan Objektif


  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

STMIK Budi Darma
Secretariat: Sisingamangaraja No. 338 Telp 061-7875998

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.